Existence, being the larger realm, houses reality, the smaller realm. — ucarr

This seems to me ontologically backwards – existence (encompassed presence (fluctuating)) presupposes reality (un-encompassed absence (vacuum)), insofar as (re: Spinoza ... Democritus-Epicurus ... Nagarjuna) the latter corresponds to necessity (~R = contradiction) and the former to contingency (~E(x) =/= contradiction). :chin:

Existence and reality are distinct realms — ucarr

Why can’t they be the same thing ? Non-existence of reality is impossible otherwise we would not be here to ask questions or even exist. The bigger question of course is what is existence? And why is it that rather than non-existence or nothing.

Existence and reality are distinct realms. Existence, being the larger realm, houses reality, the smaller realm. — ucarr

reality is an interpretation of physics by living organisms. The label for the
interpretation is reality. Physical things exist. Living organisms and their experiences vis-á-vis physics are real. — ucarr

These are interesting positions to take. Do you intend the various statements to be truth-apt? If so, how would one go about demonstrating the truth -- or falsity -- of any one of them? Or are they only meant to be internally consistent, like a puzzle that fits together?

Why can’t they be the same thing ? — kindred

They share common ground given that all of reality is housed within existence. This tells us that a part of existence is overlapped by sentience-mediated reality. Humans, being within the reality space, experience existence as an interpretation of physics structured by self-interest. In a world without life, a boulder rolling downhill is part of a causal chain that obeys ontological laws, but there's reversibility and there's no memory, so, no meaning. In a world with life the rolling boulder immediately means danger.

Do you intend the various statements to be truth-apt? — J

Yes. Since humans normally call instantiated things real, and they normally think of real things as being existent, then it matters whether or not real things and existent things are distinct. In the smaller space of sentience-based reality, existent things are not only dynamical, they’re also meaningful. In contrast, dynamical things apart from living organisms are not meaningful because they have no irreversible commitment to going forward in time under constraints that compel them to posit their presence in the face of a constant threat of destruction.

it matters whether or not real things and existent things are distinct — ucarr

OK. My question, then, was: How would we figure out if what you (or anyone) says about real things and existent things is true?

You say, "Existence is larger than reality." Philosopher Q replies, "No, reality is larger than existence." How should the debate proceed from there? Or if you prefer to put it in Popperian terms: What could falsify either of the competing statements?

I read your statement as follows: “This seems to me ontologically backwards – existence presupposes reality, in so far as reality corresponds to necessity and existence corresponds to contingency.”

As I understand your statement, you’re not addressing my premise, the soundness of the chain of reasoning to the conclusion, nor the veracity of my conclusion. You’re only addressing my use of two words in reference to their orientation. In consequence of this, I respond with the following.

Let E=necessity, and R=contingency. We’re not presently challenging the findings of Spinoza, Democritus, Epicurus and Nagarjuna. All we’re doing is swapping names and attaching them to the same formal structure that guided their conclusions.

With this name swap effected, does my OP present a coherent chain of reasoning you can track from premise (Reality is a socially-embedded interpretation of physics.) to conclusion (Meaning is sentience dependent because its value exists in reference to the live or die fork.)?

The reason for the sign swap stems from common language usage, “What exists for humans is normally called real.” The disclosure and witnessing of things real is sentience-dependent, whereas mind-independent physics is presumably parallel to sentience. Sentience being absent from that realm, it can only name that realm’s ontology in terms of a presumed common ground: either existence or reality. If the two realms are distinct, yet share a common ground, and, moreover, sentience is evaluated emergent from existing physics, then it’s structurally sound to conclude existence houses the emergence of sentient-based reality. Thus far, we only have two words that have their meaning established by definition. We can label a two-tiered structure with any two words we like. If, however, the two tiers can be shown to be distinct beyond hierarchal position by reasoning from what we observe in the natural world, then it’s incumbent upon our understanding and the epistemic record to elaborate the additional difference.

It matters whether or not real things and existent things are distinct and, as you point out, they are distinct according to the difference between necessity and contingence. With emergence, necessity and contingence are reductively constrained in their hierarchal difference because properties of emergent systems can act in independence from their ground. This is surely the case with sentience which interprets physics with its denominator of survival that establishes the unit in reference to which physics has its value: meaning. Physics, like the numerator of a fraction, scales in reference to perishable sentience from quantum foam to cosmos.

In the smaller space of sentience-based reality, existent things are not only dynamical, they’re also meaningful. In contrast, dynamical things apart from living organisms are not meaningful because they have no irreversible commitment to going forward in time under constraints that compel them to position their presence in the face of a constant threat of destruction. Living organisms have stakes positioning their survival amidst unavoidable risks. Meaning, therefore, lives inside of a continuity of self-referential persistent identity through transformation across time. Meaning is the remembrance of things past by a vulnerable identity transforming in time. That’s history. Mind-independent reality has dynamical chains of causation and results. It’s devoid of personal history and its meaning going forward.

With this name swap effected, does my OP present a coherent chain of reasoning you can track from premise (Reality is a socially-embedded interpretation of physics.) to conclusion (Meaning is sentience dependent because its value exists in reference to the live or die fork.)? — ucarr

No.

Please read the part of this post concerning the boulder rolling down a hill. It attempts to show the big difference between a world with life, memory and stakes, and one without.

Worlds with/without life

Are you willing to share an account of why you can't track a coherent chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion?

I don't think you provided anything which I would call a chain of reasoning. I can't quite pull apart what I can't see is there.

Does a system with a sub-system nested within itself make sense to you in terms of a possible structure? This is one of the most important claims I'm putting forward: reality (by my usage) is a sub-system emergent from existence (by my usage).

As I understand your statement, you’re not addressing my premise ... — ucarr

Read it again: I'm disputing your ontological premise, not merely "swapped terms", in reference to Spinoza et al.

:up:

Existence, being the larger realm, houses reality, the smaller realm. The two realms overlap in terms of the raw physics of existence. — ucarr

If you look into the subject in philosophy, it is a major topic in metaphysics and ontology. 'Existence and reality' are often paired with two more terms, 'being and truth', as subjects for elucidation. The relationships between all of these terms are very slippery, because, as one introduction noted, they are often used interchangeably, even by the same person, and the way they are used varies considerably from one philosopher to another.

Oxford Uniiversity runs an external course called Reality, Being and Existence: an Introduction to Metaphysics. (I once considered enrolling, although never did.) If you cast your eye down the course outline, you'll see it covers virtually the whole of philosophy.

So - cheers for at least putting up the idea for discussion. But it needs some reference points, other than just your internal reasoning and a single 'argument from analogy' for such a large topic. (This is why academic philosophers generally pick much more specialised subject matter for their speciality, as this kind of grand metaphysical project is a very difficult subject.)

Ok - and in principle, yep. But there's no chain of reasoning for me to respond to in your OP (or, imo a coherent narrative even). So i'll stay with the original questions rather than moving on to further statements and questions that obscure the initial objection.

What you say gives me some very helpful context: massive volume and complexity attaches to my attempt to distinguish existence and reality structurally. No doubt you're right about specialization being the best way to proceed through the thicket of conflated concepts and practices.

I wonder if you have any thoughts on the claim reality, an emanation from sentient presence indexes physics to the survivability of living organisms, and therefore, learning about the world is really learning about yourself within the world?

Reality is an un-encompassed system of built-in inter-relations. It has no outside, no inside, and no meta-physical curvature towards thermo-dynamic equilibrium. Given this structure of reality, it's possible for reality to host a nested sub-system. It is also possible that this sub-system can share common ground (existence) with reality which, within the sub-system, acts as an ontological ground for an emergent property of that ground: sentient-indexed personal meaning-bearing reality.

Show me where there's a break in this chain of reasoning rendering it unsound.

Why do you think system → sub-system → sub-system_emergent property that shares ontology with system and sub-system is not a chain of reasoning you can examine for coherence?

I wonder if you have any thoughts on the claim reality, an emanation from sentient presence indexes physics to the survivability of living organisms, and therefore, learning about the world is really learning about yourself within the world? — ucarr

OK I'll try and give you a brief account of my thoughts on the matter.

They all begin with a simple observation. When I first joined these forums, about 15 years ago, the first question I asked was about the reality of numbers and mathematical objects. I had had this minor epiiphany: the ancients believed that numbers were 'higher' than ordinary objects, because they didn't go into or out of existence, and because they're not composed of parts. This is very traditional philosophy, but it's largely forgotten in today's culture.

I began to explore the idea that numbers, mathematical rules, logical laws, and the like, are real, in that they're not arbitrary or made up. Arithmetic is constrained by rules and necessary truths.

I've learned since that this is a form of what is called 'logical realism', although the way I interpreted it was more in line with Christian Platonism. Early in the research, I found a description of Augustine on Intelligible Objects which made sense to me.

So - those kinds of 'intellgible objects' - numbers, logical laws, and the like - are real. But they're not existent in the sense that phenomenal objects are. They're not sense-objects, but can only be grasped by reason. Which is why we, as 'rational beings' are able to grasp them, in a way that non-rational animals cannot.

(I've also learned that this is highly unfashionable and even politically incorrect. Naturalism prefers to see us as part of nature - the attempt to differentiate ourselves from other animals is seen as a throwback to Christian paternalism.)

Anyway, the upshot is that 'what is real' far exceeds 'what exists', if 'what exists' is defined in terms of phenomenal existents, i.e. things we could encounter by sense or instruments. 'What is real' includes the vast domains of mathematics, for example, only a minute fraction of which is understandable, and only a small fraction of that is instantiated in phenomenal reality.

I've learned that this kind of distinction between reality and existence is not unique to me, although I do put my own particular interpretation on it. I did once try a thread on Reality, Being and Existence, but the advice I got was to read Heidegger's metaphysics. In any case, all of this is firmly in the ballpark of metaphysics, and it's a very difficult subject.

In any case, all of this is firmly in the ballpark of metaphysics, and it's a very difficult subject. — Wayfarer

An excellent response, Wayfarer. And there are really just three responses possible: 1) Do the hard work and study thinkers who have effectively thought through these matters. 2) Make shit up, reinvent the wheel, making every mistake along the way. 3) My response: don’t concern yourself with recondite matters, since they are close to impossible to resolve unless you have the time to read and a fecund and prodigious intellect. Since I have neither, I’m happy to leave the metaphysics to the experts and the plonkers.

Existence, being the larger realm, houses reality, the smaller realm. The two realms overlap in terms of the raw physics of existence. — ucarr

I don't think this will stand up. (I'm assuming that "existence" means "everything that exists" and "reality" means "everything that is real". )
What does it mean to say that reality is smaller than existence? Are you saying that there are some things that exist, but are not real? That applies to most things that we say are unreal. A forged painting is still a painting, even if it is not a real Rembrandt; a model car plainly exists, but is not a car. And so on. That mean that you are saying that unreal things exist. Which is fine, except that it means that they are real, as well.
Then there are fictional objects like unicorns and the starship Enterprise. They do not exist, but yet are real characters in stories and exist in that sense.
I think it is a mistake to think of reality as distinct sub-domain of distinct objects. The relationship between them is more complicated than that.

Reality is the transformation of existence space, characterized by computable causation space with its interactions, measurements and results, into meaning space, characterized by the perishability/survivability axis of living organisms. — ucarr

This combines the perfectly respectable philosophical issue with of finding meaning in the meaningless world of physics with your headline topic. But it suggests that existence and reality are coterminous and related to each other - not that they are separate domains of objects.
But you beg the question whether there are different kinds of existence. It is far from obvious that the only things that exist are those things recognized by physics. On the contrary, physics could not exist without mathematics, so surely we cannot say that mathematical objects don't exist. I would stand up for colours and sounds as well.

Anyway, the upshot is that 'what is real' far exceeds 'what exists', if 'what exists' is defined in terms of phenomenal existents, i.e. things we could encounter by sense or instruments. 'What is real' includes the vast domains of mathematics, for example, only a minute fraction of which is understandable, and only a small fraction of that is instantiated in phenomenal reality. — Wayfarer

I wouldn't disagree with you. But I do pause at the idea that the domains of mathematics are vast in any sense comparable to the domain of the phenomenal or the physical. These things exist as separate categories. The core meaning of space only applies to the physical. It can be applied in a metaphorical sense to other categories of existence, but not in the same sense. These things are not comparable in that way.

On the contrary, for some of us, at least, metaphysical questions are pressing. They're not idle or abstract - they matter.

I do pause at the idea that the domains of mathematics are vast in any sense comparable to the domain of the phenomenal or the physica — Ludwig V

Of course that domain is not spatially vast, as number is not extended in space. But the domain of mathematics is vast in a different way, as it is something which has been explored and expanded by generations of mathematicians since the ancient of days, and seems to be inexhaustible.

By focusing on objects perceptible by the mind alone and by observing their nature, in particular their eternity and immutability, Augustine came to see that certain things that clearly exist, namely, the objects of the intelligible realm, cannot be corporeal. When he cries out in the midst of his vision of the divine nature, “Is truth nothing just because it is not diffused through space, either finite or infinite?” (FVP 13–14), he is acknowledging that it is the discovery of intelligible truth that first frees him to comprehend incorporeal reality. — Cambridge Companion to Augustine, The Divine Nature

(Although here I would prefer to say 'certain things that are clearly real'. Hence my point about the distinction between existents and reality.)

On the contrary, for some of us, at least, metaphysical questions are pressing. They're not idle or abstract - they matter. — Wayfarer

No need to be defensive. I was very clear to put in option 1.

[ Sorry didn’t mean to come across like that.

:up:

...just three responses possible: 1) Do the hard work and study thinkers who have effectively thought through these matters. 2) Make shit up, reinvent the wheel, making every mistake along the way. 3) My response: don’t concern yourself with recondite matters... — Tom Storm

Thanks for giving my OP some of your time and attention. Such an exploration always needs to be referred to the guidelines of your three-item list.

...'what is real' far exceeds 'what exists', if 'what exists' is defined in terms of phenomenal existents, i.e. things we could encounter by sense or instruments. 'What is real' includes the vast domains of mathematics, for example, only a minute fraction of which is understandable, and only a small fraction of that is instantiated in phenomenal reality. — Wayfarer

One of the difficulties of metaphysics in general is the fact that examinations of ontology require the examiner to internally model ontology, and it’s fundamentals. The problem is a problem of perspective because the examiner must try to access mind-independent reality within the presence of his own sentience, which is pervasively representational rather than fundamentally ontological.

When we look at what can exist fundamentally and what does actually instantiate fundamentally, we’re looking through the lens of our imagination, which is a complex form of representation.

Only sentients, probably only humans, talk about things being real. On a world without sentience there’s no talk of things being real. On that world events without stakes are physics. Talk of reality requires sentience and stakes; i e., risk and possible death . This establishes a clear and unmistakable difference between ontological physics and reality.

The mistake is to mark physics with the label “reality.” It’s true that existence and its physics is a much larger category than “reality” as I’m defining it. Yes, reality is a sub-system of existence, and yes, existence is necessary whereas sentience-based reality is contingent upon existence. Existence is the ground from which sentience-based reality emerges.

My partition of existence and reality moves in the easier direction of arguing that representation and imagination create a socially embedded consensus reality, which is radiant in the presence of sentience, and therefore a small subset of what exists in the universe apart from sentient beings.

What does it mean to say that reality is smaller than existence? Are you saying that there are some things that exist, but are not real? — Ludwig V

:up:

I can't grok your post. Unpack it for me ... or show where the objection in my initial post goes wrong.

:up:

What does it mean to say that reality is smaller than existence? Are you saying that there are some things that exist, but are not real? That applies to most things that we say are unreal. A forged painting is still a painting, even if it is not a real Rembrandt; a model car plainly exists, but is not a car. And so on. That mean that you are saying that unreal things exist. Which is fine, except that it means that they are real, as well.
Then there are fictional objects like unicorns and the starship Enterprise. They do not exist, but yet are real characters in stories and exist in that sense.
I think it is a mistake to think of reality as distinct sub-domain of distinct objects. The relationship between them is more complicated than that. — Ludwig V

Irreversibility drives vulnerability which drives adaptation depth. This trio drives existential depth.
This is the heart of the reason why existence and reality are distinct.

Your quoted comments are all rendered through the lens of your internal-model-making mind. Representation allows you to internalize parts of the world within your brain and its thoughts and images. As a human you're good at internal-model-making because you're vulnerable and physical forces might destroy you. That's human reality emergent from physics. Take away living organisms and vulnerability-based reality collapses.

This combines the perfectly respectable philosophical issue with of finding meaning in the meaningless world of physics with your headline topic. But it suggests that existence and reality are coterminous and related to each other - not that they are separate domains of objects. — Ludwig V

I agree with this structural description.

...you beg the question whether there are different kinds of existence. It is far from obvious that the only things that exist are those things recognized by physics. On the contrary, physics could not exist without mathematics, so surely we cannot say that mathematical objects don't exist. I would stand up for colours and sounds as well. — Ludwig V

Consider the ontological, existential and epistemic status of math. I say math is one of the fundamental ontological laws of the universe with universe defined as system. Since existence and reality share the same ontology, math applies to both. Therefore, the structures of both existence and sentient-based reality are constrained by what math language narrates.

As for the different kinds of existence, your use of the word "existence" makes it clear that when I use the word "existence," I mean all of the types of things that exist. Existence houses the total ontology. Sentient-based reality, nested within existence, houses a sub-set of ontology experienced; i e., irreversible selection going forward, intentions and, most importantly, meaning indexed to life/death. Mind-independent existence is a larger category; much of what exists is unknown to sentient experience. Sentient-based reality is therefore smaller. Only sentients can experience physics, and that experience is always referenced to sentient perishability, and that, coupled with irreversible commitments selected going forward into a time-limited future makes sentience-mediated reality meaning-bearing, whereas the existence of physics is not meaning-bearing.

My simple structure is system (existence) - sub-system (sentient-based reality). The sub-system is nested within the system. This means that both categories share the same ontology. However, sentient-based reality, which is existence experienced, doesn't intersect with much of existence beyond the earth, so it's a smaller category.

As I understand your first post, you're arguing that reality is necessary, so negation of reality is a contradiction whereas existence, being contingent (upon reality), can be negated without contradiction.

My thesis has no argument with this logic-based hierarchy that makes reality a bigger category than existence.

I'm arguing what exists without the presence of sentience is bigger than what exists in the presence of sentience, a rare emergent phenomenon. Giving the necessary category the name of existence and the contingent category the name of reality registers in my understanding as something doable. Existence is instantiated ontology unexperienced; reality is instantiated ontology experienced. This swap seems to flow naturally because on earth, in human societies, reality is based on consensus about what is experienced, not on speculation about mind-independent instantiated ontology.